Reading-writing connections: Discourse-oriented research

Reading and Writing

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 225-250

  Parodi, Giovanni ^a  

^a PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE VALPARAÍSO   (Chile)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Psycholinguistic processes; Reading writing relations; Written discourse

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845930087     PISSN: 09224777     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11145-006-9029-7     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Arnoux, E., Nogueira, S., & Silvestri, A. (2002). La construcción de representaciones enunciativas: El reconocimiento de voces en la comprensión de textos polifónicos [The construction of representations: Voice recognition in reading poliphonic texts]. Revista Signas [Signs Journal], 35, 129-148.
2. Belanger, J. (1987). Theory and research into reading and writing connections: A critical review. Reading-Canada Lecture, 5, 10-21.
3. Boscolo, P., & Cisotto, L. (1999). On narrative reading-writing relationships: How young writers construe the reader's need for inferences. In S. Goldman, A. Graesser & P. Broekvan den (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence. Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 161-178). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Brem, S., Russell, J., & Weems, L. (2001). Science on the web: Students' evaluations of scientific arguments. Discourse Processes, 32, 191-213.
5. Camps, A. (1995). Aprender a escribir textos argumentativos: Características dialógicas de la argumentación escrita [Learning to write argumentative texts: Dialogic characteristics in composing argumentation]. Infancia y Aprendizaje [Childhood and learning], 25, 51-63.
6. Camps, A., & Millian, M. (2000). Metalinguistic activity in learning to write. Amsterdam: Amsterdan University Press.
7. Coirier, P., Gaonac'h, D., & Passerault, J. (1996). Psycholinguistique textuelle [Text psycholinguistics]. Paris: Hachette.
8. Cooper, L., & Odell, R. (1977). Evaluating writing: Describing, measuring, judging. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
9. Cooper, L., & Odell, R. (1998). Evaluating writing: The role of teachers knowledge about text, learning & culture. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
10. Crombach, L. (1988). Five perspectives on validity argument. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 3-19). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. Beaugrande, R. de (1997). New foundations for a science of text and discourse: Cognition, communication, and the freedom of access to knowledge and society. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
12. Eckhoff, S. (1983). How reading affects children's writing. Language Arts, 60, 234-256.
13. Ede, L., & Lundford, A. (1988). Audience addressed/audience invoked: The role of audience in composition theory and pedagogy. In G. Tate & E. Corbett (Eds.), The writing teacher's sourcebook (pp. 248-259). New York: Oxford University Press.
14. Eisterhold, J. (1991). Reading-writing connections: Toward a description for second language learners. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 88-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentative discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32, 135-153.
16. Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 39-50.
17. Gernsbacher, M. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18. Golder, C., & Coirier, P. (1994). Argumentative text writing: Developmental trends. Discourse Processes, 18, 187-210.
19. Gómez, L. (1994). La dimension social de la comprensión textual [Social dimension of textual comprehension]. Revista Signos [Signs Journal], 27, 35-46.
20. Graesser, A., & Bower, G. (1992). Inferences and text comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21. Graesser, A., Gernsbacher, M., & Goldman, S. (1997). Cognition. In T. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as structure and process. Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (pp. 7-27). Vol. 1 London: SAGE.
22. Graesser, A., Magliano, J., & Haberlandt, K. (1994a). Psychological studies of naturalistic text. In H. Van Oostendorp & R. Zwaan (Eds.), Naturalistic text comprehension (pp. 9-33). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
23. Graesser, A., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994b). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395.
24. Graesser, A., Swamer, S., Baggett, W., & Sell, M. (1996). New models of deep comprehension. In B. Britton & A. Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 5-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25. Greene, S., & Ackerman, J. (1995). Expanding the constructivist metaphor: A rethorical perspective on literacy research and practice. Review of Educational Research, 65, 383-420.
26. Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, J., & Black, W. (1999). Multivariate data analysis. New York: Prentice Hall.
27. Harp, B., & Brewer, J. (1991). Reading and writing: Teaching for the connections. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Yovanovich.
28. Hass, A. (1989). Collaboration through writing and reading. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
29. Hedges, L. (1988). The meta-analysis of test validity studies: Some new approaches. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 191-213). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30. Heller, M. (1995). Reading-writing connections: From theory to practice. London: Longman.
31. Irwin, J. (1992). Research in reading/writing from 1900 to 1984. In J. Irwin & M. Doyle (Eds.), Reading/writing connections: Learning from research (pp. 308-333). Newark, DE: IRA.
32. Irwin, J., & Doyle, M. (Eds.) (1992). Reading/writing connections: Learning from research. Newark, Delaware: IRA.
33. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modulary: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34. Kent, T. (Ed.) (1999). Post-process theory. Beyond the writing-process paradigm. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
35. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
36. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37. Kucer, S. (1985). The making of meaning: Reading and writing as parallel processes. Written Communication, 2, 317-356.
38. Kucer, S. (2001). Dimensions of literacy. A conceptual base for teaching reading and writing in school settings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39. Langer, J. (1986). Children reading and writing. Structures and strategies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
40. Langer, J. (2002). Effective literacy instruction. Building successful reading and writing programs. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
41. Madden, C., & Zwaan, R. (2003). How does verb aspect constrain event representation?. Memory & Cognition, 31, 663-672.
42. Myers, T., Brown, K., & McGonigle, B. (1986). Reasoning and discourse processes. London: Academic Press.
43. Nelson, N., & Calfee, R. (1998). The reading-writing connections viewed historically. In N. Nelson & R. Calfee (Eds.), The reading-writing connection (pp. 1-52). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
44. Nystrand, M. (1987). The role of context in written communication. In R. Horowitz & J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 197-212). New York: Academic Press.
45. Nystrand, M. (1990). Sharing words: The effects of readers on developing writers. Written Communication, 7, 3-24.
46. Oison, G. (1999). Toward a post-process composition: Abandoning the rhetoric of assertion. In T. Kent (Ed.), Post-process theory. Beyond the writing-process paradigm (pp. 7-15). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
47. Parodi, G. (1989). La inferencia una aproximación al concepto [Inferences: Approaching the concept]. In: Proceedings 8th congress of the Chilean society of linguistics (pp. 211-220). Santiago de Chile.
48. Parodi, G. (1990). Los procesos inferenciales en la comprensión de textos escritos [Inferential processes in reading comprehension]. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso. (Unpublished Masters dissertation).
49. Parodi, G. (1992). Estructura textual y estrategias lectoras [Text structure and reading strategies]. Lenguas Modernas I Modern Languages], 19, 89-98.
50. Parodi, G. (1998). Conexiones entre comprensión y producción de textos escritos: Estudio exploratorio en alumnos de educación básica [Reading-writing connections: Exploratory study with elementary schools students]. Revista Lingüística en el Aula [Journal of Classroom Linguistics], 2, 7-18.
51. Parodi, G. (2000). La evaluación de a production de textos escritos argumentativos: Una alternativa cognitivo discursiva [Evaluating written argumentative texts: A discourse and cognitive alternative]. Revista Signos (Signs Journal], 33, 151-167.
52. Parodi, G. (2001). Comprensión y producción del discurso escrito: Estudio empírico en escolares chilenos [Reading and writing texts: Research with Chilean students]. Revista Iberoamericana de Discurso y Sociedad [Iberoamerican Journal of Discourse and Society], 3, 75-101.
53. Parodi, G. (2002). Comprensión lingüística: ¿Hacia dónde vamos desde donde estamos? [Reading comprehension: Where do we go from where we are?]. In: G. Parodi (Ed.), Lingüí stica e interdisciplinariedad: Desafíos del nuevo milenio. Ensayos en honor a Marianne Peronard [Linguistics and interdisciplinarty: Challenges of the new millennium. Essays in honor of Marianne Peronard] (pp. 44-67). Valparaíso: Editorial Universitaria de Valparaíso.
54. Parodi, G. (2003). Relaciones entre lectura y escritura: Una perspectiva cognitiva discursiva [Relationships between reading and writing: Discursive and cognitive perspectives]. Valparaiso: Editorial Universitaria de Valparaiso.
55. Parodi, G. (2005a). Comprensión de textos escritos [Comprehension of written discourse.]. Buenos, Aires: EUDEBA.
56. Parodi, G. (Ed.) (2005b). Discurso especializado e instituciones formadoras [Specialized discourse and academic institutions]. Valparaíso: Editorial Universitaria de Valparaíso.
57. Parodi, G., & Núñez, P. (1998). El desarrollo de estrategias de lectura comprensiva: Una aplicación experimental del "Programa L y C: Leer y Comprender" [Reading strategies development: An experience with "Programa L y C: Leer y Comprender"]. In: M. Peronard, L. Gómez, G. Parodi, & P. Núñez (Eds.), Comprensión de textos escritos: De la teoría a la sala de clases [Reading comprehension: From theory to practice] (pp. 249-264). Santiago de Chile: Editorial Andrés Bello.
58. Parodi, G., & Núñez, P. (1999). En búsqueda de un modelo cognitivo/textual para la evaluación del texto escrito [In search of a model for the evaluation of written texts]. In: M. C. Martínez (Ed.), Comprensión y producción de textos académicos: Expositivos y argumentativos [Reading and writing academic texts: Expositive and argumentative genres] (pp. 81-115). Cali, Colombia: Universidad del Valle.
59. Peronard, M., Gómez, L., Parodi, G., & Núñez, P. (1998). Comprensión de textos escritos: De la teoría a la sala de clases [Reading comprehension: From theory to practice]. Santiago de Chile: Editorial Andrés Bello.
60. Reuter, Y. (1995). Les relations lecture-écriture dans le champ didactique [The reading-writing relationtionship in methodological applications]. Pratiques [Practices], 86, 5-23.
61. Rickheit, G., & Strohner, H. (1985). Inferences in text processing. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publications.
62. Ruth, L., & Murphy, S. (1988). Designing writing tasks for the assessment of writing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
63. Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (1994). A dual coding view of imagery and verbal processes in reading comprehension. In R. Ruddell, M. Rudell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 582-601). Newark, DE: IRA.
64. Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2001). Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading and writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
65. Sager, M. (1989). Exploiting the reading-writing connection to engage students in text. Journal of Reading, 33, 24-39.
66. Sánchez, I., & Álvarez, N. (1999). El discurso argumentativo de los escolares venezolanos: ¿Evolution o estancamiento? [Argumentative discourse in Venezuelan school students: Development or stagnation?]. Paper presented at the 3rd International Congress of Discourse Analysis (ALED): Santiago de Chile.
67. Shanahan, T. (1984). Nature of the reading-writing relation: An exploratory multivariate analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 466-477.
68. Shanahan, T., & Lomax, R. (1986). An analysis and comparison of theoretical models of the reading-writing relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 116-123.
69. Spivey, N. (1990). Transforming texts: Constructing processes in reading and writing. Written Communication, 7, 256-290.
70. Spivey, N. (1997). The constructivist metaphor: Reading, writing and the making of meaning. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
71. Stotsky, S. (1983). Research on reading/writing relationships: A synthesis and suggested directions. Language Arts, 60, 627-642.
72. Tierney, R. (1992). Ongoing research and new directions. In J. Irwin & M. Doyle (Eds.), Reading/writing connections: Learning from research (pp. 246-259). Newark, DE: IRA.
73. Tierney, R., & Shanahan, T. (1991). Research on the reading-writing relationship: Interactions, transactions, and outcomes. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal & D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 246-280). Vol. II Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
74. Van Dijk, T. (1980). Macrostructures. Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
75. Van Dijk, T. (1985). Cognitive situation models in discourse production: The expression of ethnic situations in prejudiced discourse. In P. Forgas (Ed.), Language and social situations (pp. 61-79). New York: Springer Verlag.
76. Van Dijk, T. (1990). Social cognition and discourse. In H. Giles & W. P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 145-167). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
77. Van Dijk, T. (1999). ¿Un estudio lingüístico de la ideología? [A linguistic study of ideology?]. In: G. Parodi (Ed.), Discurso, cognición y educación. Ensayos en honor a Luis A. Gómez Macker [Discourse, cognition, and education. Essays in honor of Luis A. Gómez Macker] (pp. 27-42). Valparaiso: Editorial Universitaria de Valparaíso.
78. Van Dijk, T. (2002). Tipos de conocimiento en el procesamiento del discurso [Knowledge types in discourse processing]. In: G. Parodi (Ed.), Lingüística e interdisciplinariedad: Desafíos del nuevo milenio, Ensayos en honor a Marianne Peronard [Linguistics and interdisciplinarity: Challenges of the new millennium. Essays in honor of Marianne Peronard] (pp. 30-43). Valparaiso: Editorial Universitaria de Valparaíso.
79. Van Dijk, T., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
80. Van Oostendorp, H., & Zwaan, R. (1994). Introduction: Naturalistic texts and naturalistic tasks. In H. OostendorpVan & R. Zwaan (Eds.), Naturalistic text comprehension (pp. 1-8). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
81. Vergara, M. (1999). Diseño y aplicación de encuestas de intereses en temas para lectura y escritura [Design and administration of reading and writing tests of interests]. In: G. Parodi (Ed.), Conexiones entre comprensión y producción de textos escritos en alumnos de educación básica [Reading-writing connections in elementary school students] (pp. 47-71). Valparaíso: Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso.
82. Weisser, C., & Dobrin, S. (2001). Ecocomposition: Theoretical and pedagogical approaches. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
83. Zwaan, R., & Radvansky, G. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162-185.